The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of High School DxD terminology[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of in-universe terminology. As far as a I know, this isn't encylopedic or even notable enough for it's own article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Also WP:FANCRUFT and original research. Merging to High School DxD is another option. ~ satellizer ~~ talk ~ 23:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe fictional articles can be written without terminology sections if incorporated correctly. So it should just be outright deleted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dragon, articles such as Shakugan no Shana once had terminology sections but were merged in with the plot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was deprodded with the reason: "The reason why that page was created, was because that information was occupying too much place on on the main page and to make extra space for other information. And deleting that page would put all the efforts of the users who made that information, which was moved to another page, to go to waste. An that is unforgivable" The "efforts of the users who made that information" is what's called WP:OR. I see no reason why this article should stay as it is unsourced and full of WP:FANCRUFT, if someone wants to merge this info into the plot (as a brief mention to avoid WP:ALLPLOT)) it could be helpful and feel free to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I've never been a big fan of terminology sections or articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My-HiME terminology), as they're always full of original research, which is a major no-no in Wikipedia articles. Plus, it's too fan-crufty and technical to be of use to anyone who is not a fan of the series. Too much undue weight on in-universe content. Such content belongs in a fanwiki, not in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia which strives to exist on content which is important and notable to all, but at the same time backed by citations. At most, (very brief and concise) paragraphs of the article's content can be merged to High School DxD's Plot section. Shakugan no Shana is a very good example of an article which improved greatly after the terminology section was phased out (it went from C-class all the way to becoming a Good Article). If such sections and articles are removed, then Wikipedia articles on anime can now focus on out-of-universe information, such as the series' production, reception, legacy and the like. If the article's editors believe their efforts will go to waste, they can either focus on another, more encyclopedic topic, or contribute to a High School DxD wiki and improve it. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created by splitting off a section of the main High School DxD article. However, someone has undone the removal of the content from the main article, so that it is now in both places (the split article and the main article). If it is determined that the section should not be kept, someone might want to remove it from the main article again (or perhaps combine some of the information into the plot section of that article). Calathan (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed it from the article as I see this as a way to skirt the consenses that happens here. I have also added a note on the IP who removed the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Consists entirely of OR and sources are unlikely to exist. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.